Where Islam spreads, freedom dies

The question of why there were no riots in Scotland is one that holds the key to unravelling the mystery of why there were any riots at all. With an ethnic minority population of around 2% according to the last census (although this will have increased by now), Scotland has not suffered from the kind of ethnic fragmentation that destroys a people's natural sense of community. The rioting in England occurred in "diverse" areas, where the bond of empathy among like people has been severed by third-world colonisation.

This explanation is too troubling to the multicultists to ever be acknowledged, however. So they need to come up with an alternative account of why Scotland was different. The Guardian manages to do this by launching the most bizarre attack on the Scots. They are being attacked for not looting!

Here is the Guardian's explanation for why there was no looting in Scotland: the Scots are so crazily violent that all they want to do is fight each other for the thrill of it and don't give a damn about the loot!

Officers with experience in the field say the nature of gang violence in Glasgow is completely different to that of London and Manchester. For a start, it's primarily all about the fighting. Not drugs, gun-running or bling, just what cops north of the border call "recreational" violence. The pure enjoyment of the fight, Clockwork Orange-style.

Glasgow's gangs aren't hierarchical in the way they often are in London or Manchester – who needs a formal structure when all you want to do is smash in your rival's face for a "pure buzz"?

The fact that the Scots are all junkies and drunks is relevant too:

The drugs of choice among the young and deprived in Glasgow are also relevant. No matter how strong your constitution, heroin and excessive alcohol are not conducive to having the motivation to get off the sofa and go looting a couple of miles away.

Also the Scots are so dirt poor there's nothing worth stealing:

Urban planning is important, too. What shocked many Scots when watching the riots is the fact that wealthy people in London live cheek by jowl with serious deprivation. In Scotland's cities the vast housing schemes are mostly on the outskirts, far away from the bustling city centres and clearly separated from the affluent areas. There are no "high streets" in the schemes to steal from and getting around takes considerable effort.

Plus violence in Scotland is on such an epic level that the mobility of the would-be rioters was heavily restricted:

Then there's the specific brand of territorialism displayed by Glasgow's gangs. Often gang members can't step outside the street in the housing scheme where they live for fear of a kicking, never mind wandering round other areas or venturing "into the town".

This is a hilarious article that typifies the mainstream media's utter contempt for indigenous British people. When Muslims refrain from looting, they are praised, even though their vigilante tactics strongly hinted that they had already organised themselves for violence in advance of the looting. When indigenous Brits refrain from violence, on the other hand, they are subjected to a tirade of insults by the Guardian.

In the Herald newspaper last week, the Scottish commentator Iain MacWhirter was a little bolder about discussing the real reasons for the difference, although he called it "the great unmentionable":

Of course, the unmentionable factor is that the Afro-caribbean community is much smaller in Scotland, and they tend to be the ones who have the most difficult relationship with the police.